Karma revisited.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Genuine question from someone who is almost completely ignorant about Buddhism: Even if (big if) there is such a thing as reincarnation, why should I care about karma?
My next life, if any, will be completely unknown to me. The person (or thing) in my next life will be as good as a stranger to me.
So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?
People who are ill fated in this life are very interested to know what they had done in their past life to deserve all these in this life. They are also interested to know what can be done to have a better life. Why wait till then to change life which is sometimes too late.
You can challenge anyone or anything in this world except Karma. It is the most silly thing to challenge karma because you will always be the loser. No God or Buddha can reverse the effect of karma. However, Buddha taught how to lighten our sins and how not to let the conditions arise for karma to materialise. That's the beauty of Buddhism.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I'm saying there is no self even now (this life), so how can there be a different self in the future (next life). So the notion to benefit the this-life-self and heck care about the next-life-self is baseless and based on an illusion (that there is a self).
There is no such thing as 'a self'.. there is only ever-changing, mental and physical sensations arising and subsiding moment by moment. Rather than 'self' it is more like 'self1, self2, self3, self4,' etc arising and subsiding moment by moment.
Like you try to locate a thing called weather - cannot be found. 'Weather' is just a human created label for a conglomerate of everchanging rain, cloud formations, wind, lightning, etc
And 'human being' is also just a label collating a conglomerate of everchanging mental and physical sensations and manifestations. There is no real self.
The basis of watching your action is that since actions lead to causal reaction, sensible people are inclined towards end of suffering rather than more suffering, so you don't do things that create more suffering in the future. The notion of an "I" is not necessary.
Since every action is done for a future reaction (notice that the notion of an 'I' is not necessary - you don't need to think in terms of benefitting a 'self', but in terms of the wholesome/unwholesome action that can result from it), might as well make it for a good future reaction. But even better is to be liberated, then you no longer make karmic causes for future rebirths, but that is at a higher level. For people not liberated, we should seek liberation, and watch our thoughts, speech and actions so that they produce wholesome results rather than unwholesome ones.
Hi. For me, I am able to accept the explanation of each moment being self 1, self 2, self 3, etc. The question that follows is: if self 1, self 2, self 3 etc are not the same entity/"person", why is it that the this-moment-self (let's call it self 10) can feel and identify with the pain/suffering of self 1, self 2, self 3 etc (ie. past-moment-selves) and has a natural tendency to protect self 15, 16 , 17, etc (ie. future-moment-selves) from suffering?
I'd appreciate your further elaboration please. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Genuine question from someone who is almost completely ignorant about Buddhism: Even if (big if) there is such a thing as reincarnation, why should I care about karma?
My next life, if any, will be completely unknown to me. The person (or thing) in my next life will be as good as a stranger to me.
So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?
I see where you are coming from because I used to think like that when I was younger. My current situation is that I am 50/50 % with regards to whether karma and past/future lives exist or not.
IF they indeed exist, then it may just be possible that you are able to feel the sufferings in your next life should there be some kind of continuity of consciousness into the next life.
This topic is very profound. We may never be fully convinced one way or the other. In any case, do keep an open mind.
-
When one concludes what should be at the other end, one is no longer ''seeking'' but hiding behind one's vested interest(s). Also, when something is not an experiential reality for oneself, just talking ABOUT it is tantamount to lying to oneself. That seems to be the predicament that many are oblivous to this mind-games. Trying to intellectualize that which is beyond the comprehenshion or expereince of one's existence, is no matter what still a mind game. I can go on for aeons about the taste of water, the other can imagine, conceptualize and hope and hope, until he/she is tasting it, there is no living excepting living in the mind!
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
I'm saying there is no self even now (this life), so how can there be a different self in the future (next life). So the notion to benefit the this-life-self and heck care about the next-life-self is baseless and based on an illusion (that there is a self).
There is no such thing as 'a self'.. there is only ever-changing, mental and physical sensations arising and subsiding moment by moment. Rather than 'self' it is more like 'self1, self2, self3, self4,' etc arising and subsiding moment by moment.
Like you try to locate a thing called weather - cannot be found. 'Weather' is just a human created label for a conglomerate of everchanging rain, cloud formations, wind, lightning, etc
And 'human being' is also just a label collating a conglomerate of everchanging mental and physical sensations and manifestations. There is no real self.
The basis of watching your action is that since actions lead to causal reaction, sensible people are inclined towards end of suffering rather than more suffering, so you don't do things that create more suffering in the future. The notion of an "I" is not necessary.
Since every action is done for a future reaction (notice that the notion of an 'I' is not necessary - you don't need to think in terms of benefitting a 'self', but in terms of the wholesome/unwholesome action that can result from it), might as well make it for a good future reaction. But even better is to be liberated, then you no longer make karmic causes for future rebirths, but that is at a higher level. For people not liberated, we should seek liberation, and watch our thoughts, speech and actions so that they produce wholesome results rather than unwholesome ones.
1. Is it then right to say that a human being is just a bunch of combined aggregates (physical and mental) and life (in the conventional sense of the word) is merely a series of impersonal processes which result from the law of cause and effect?
2. How then are human beings different from robots with super artificial intelligence?
I appreciate your taking time to post, thank you.
-
Originally posted by Fugazzi:
When one concludes what should be at the other end, one is no longer ’’seeking’’ but hiding behind one’s vested interest(s). Also, when something is not an experiential reality for oneself, just talking ABOUT it is tantamount to lying to oneself. That seems to be the predicament that many are oblivous to this mind-games. Trying to intellectualize that which is beyond the comprehenshion or expereince of one’s existence, is no matter what still a mind game.
I can go on for aeons about the taste of water, the other can imagine, conceptualize and hope and hope, until he/she is tasting it, there is no living excepting living in the mind!Yes, it is all speculation at this point. "Mind games" as you call it. But how else can we try to understand the truth about karma and past/future lives otherwise? Any advice would be appreciated.
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
Hi. For me, I am able to accept the explanation of each moment being self 1, self 2, self 3, etc. The question that follows is: if self 1, self 2, self 3 etc are not the same entity/"person", why is it that the this-moment-self (let's call it self 10) can feel and identify with the pain/suffering of self 1, self 2, self 3 etc (ie. past-moment-selves) and has a natural tendency to protect self 15, 16 , 17, etc (ie. future-moment-selves) from suffering?
I'd appreciate your further elaboration please. Thank you.
In short... the movement or inclination to aleviate suffering, in 'oneself' or 'others' conventionally speaking, is compassion.
Compassion in ordinary deluded person is tainted with the sense of duality, the sense that there is a 'me' in here, who wants to eliminate suffering in 'other'.
Compassion not tainted by such delusion is simply a spontaneous action arising according to wisdom to aleviate suffering without much of an emotional based attachment. In Diamond Sutra, it is said that a Bodhisattva should give rise to great compassion and the will to save all sentient beings, and yet he should not think that there is a self, and a sentient being being saved, because such views of a 'self' and 'sentient being' is wrong view.
It is actually very simple and it is not necessary to make it more complicated.
As an analogy:
You see a fire burning in front. Your wisdom spontaneously arise an action to get away from the fire, rather than getting burnt.
No need for 'I' notion needed. In fact sometimes in such dangerous situation, there is not even time to think about 'I'. Sometimes people make heroic acts, run into the fire and save some children... all the way thoughtless, without any sense of 'I'. What is this? Spontaneous uncalculated action out of compassion, which does not give rise to thought of 'I' and 'others'.
A Bodhisattva functions through spontaneous wisdom and compassion, no thoughts required. No sense of 'I' or 'others' required. In fact a Bodhisattva, having realized no-self, will effortlessly experience no-self in everyday life... rather than in special situations like fire burning.
-
that which is an expereince always never stays, so, find out what is permanent and being stubborn about wanting to find out what is permanent may make u move inwards, inwards and .... Truth spoken is a lready the past, turht cannot be found in scriputures, sutras - though the latter may avail u of techniques - use them as devices but being attached to this devices is the misunderstanding- along the way it has to drop. U are already realised and it only needs recognition - nothing to add, nothing to minus - the key is being present to your being or being present to ur self . PS : When one is being .... one is absent to the self. Self is what one thinks of onself. Being is what one is being now (here-now) . My talking about love is simple mind-games, My being loving is the real existential happening!
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Genuine question from someone who is almost completely ignorant about Buddhism: Even if (big if) there is such a thing as reincarnation, why should I care about karma?
My next life, if any, will be completely unknown to me. The person (or thing) in my next life will be as good as a stranger to me.
So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?
"So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?"
Rebirth in Buddhism is a belief (the belief is more prominent and important in the teaching of the Mahayanist traditions). More importantly is the Buddha’s teaching of the Four Noble Truths on the causes and the cessation of suffering.
Karma in Buddhist term means ‘volition’ or ‘intention’ so whatever actions you decide to take will bear certain results with certain consequences for the person in this life and of course, to Buddhists, will be carried forward to your future lives if one has not realized the Noble Truth of Suffering and the cessation of suffering.
By the way, one do find Buddhists, especially westerners who do not belief in cosmic rebirths, but interpret rebirth more as a mental becoming, and rebirth as a continuous momentary flow that goes on and on until cessation of suffering is attained.
Karma in the Buddhist sense is an important teaching used in the explanation of the Doctrine of Dependent Origination in all the various Buddhist traditions.
Here is extract of a Sutta called the “A Safe Bet” that tell us that it is better to belief in rebirth, as whether it is right or wrong, either way one will still benefit from believing in it.
MN 60 - Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet: on the question of Existence & non-existence in para. B3, It is stated as follows, "With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
-
Something I don't like about Western Buddhists - their pick and choose attitude.
By the way Rebirth is as important in Pali suttas. It was never emphasized more in Mahayana.
Four Noble Truths is Buddha's third knowledge on the day of enlightenment. His first and second knowledge is about rebirth and karma.
Rebirth and Karma is no more a belief than Four Noble Truths... since all three knowledges can be discovered through one's experience and practice.
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
Yes, it is all speculation at this point. "Mind games" as you call it. But how else can we try to understand the truth about karma and past/future lives otherwise? Any advice would be appreciated.
that which is an expereince always never stays, so, find out what is permanent and being stubborn about wanting to find out what is permanent may make u move inwards, inwards and …. Truth spoken is a lready the past, turht cannot be found in scriputures, sutras – though the latter may avail u of techniques – use them as devices but being attached to this devices is the misunderstanding- along the way it has to drop. U are already realised and it only needs recognition – nothing to add, nothing to minus – the key is being present to your being or being present to ur self . PS : When one is being …. one is absent to the self. Self is what one thinks of onself. Being is what one is being now (here-now) . My talking about love is simple mind-games, My being loving is the real existential happening! -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Something I don't like about Western Buddhists - their pick and choose attitude.
By the way Rebirth is as important in Pali suttas. It was never emphasized more in Mahayana.
Four Noble Truths is Buddha's third knowledge on the day of enlightenment. His first and second knowledge is about rebirth and karma.
Rebirth and Karma is no more a belief than Four Noble Truths... since all three knowledges can be discovered through one's experience and practice.
Rebirth and kamma are important teaching in the Pali Suttas. There are many Suttas on these two subjects, they go hand in hand. The reason I said it is emphasized more in the Mahayanist tradition, is because of the Bodhisattva Ideals. Without the teaching of rebirth, the doctrine would fall flat. Not so with rebirth in the Theravada tradition. That is why the Western Buddhists can interpret it differently and still called themselves as Buddhist.
Rebirth and Kamma knowledge were not new with the Buddha alone. It is believe others too, have this knowledge. It is because the Buddha saw the futility of the round of rebirth cause by kammic effect during his awakening that the insight of the Noble Truths and the Dependent Origination doctrines comes about. In SN22.86, the Buddha declared, “Both formerly & now, it is only Stress that I describe, and the cessation of Stress."
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
In short... the movement or inclination to aleviate suffering, in 'oneself' or 'others' conventionally speaking, is compassion.
Compassion in ordinary deluded person is tainted with the sense of duality, the sense that there is a 'me' in here, who wants to eliminate suffering in 'other'.
Compassion not tainted by such delusion is simply a spontaneous action arising according to wisdom to aleviate suffering without much of an emotional based attachment. In Diamond Sutra, it is said that a Bodhisattva should give rise to great compassion and the will to save all sentient beings, and yet he should not think that there is a self, and a sentient being being saved, because such views of a 'self' and 'sentient being' is wrong view.
It is actually very simple and it is not necessary to make it more complicated.
As an analogy:
You see a fire burning in front. Your wisdom spontaneously arise an action to get away from the fire, rather than getting burnt.
No need for 'I' notion needed. In fact sometimes in such dangerous situation, there is not even time to think about 'I'. Sometimes people make heroic acts, run into the fire and save some children... all the way thoughtless, without any sense of 'I'. What is this? Spontaneous uncalculated action out of compassion, which does not give rise to thought of 'I' and 'others'.
A Bodhisattva functions through spontaneous wisdom and compassion, no thoughts required. No sense of 'I' or 'others' required. In fact a Bodhisattva, having realized no-self, will effortlessly experience no-self in everyday life... rather than in special situations like fire burning.
This is an interesting perspective, thank you!
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
"So hypothetically, if I am given the opportunity to steal or rob and never get caught, why should the concept of karma even impact my decision?"
Rebirth in Buddhism is a belief (the belief is more prominent and important in the teaching of the Mahayanist traditions). More importantly is the Buddha’s teaching of the Four Noble Truths on the causes and the cessation of suffering.
Karma in Buddhist term means ‘volition’ or ‘intention’ so whatever actions you decide to take will bear certain results with certain consequences for the person in this life and of course, to Buddhists, will be carried forward to your future lives if one has not realized the Noble Truth of Suffering and the cessation of suffering.
By the way, one do find Buddhists, especially westerners who do not belief in cosmic rebirths, but interpret rebirth more as a mental becoming, and rebirth as a continuous momentary flow that goes on and on until cessation of suffering is attained.
Karma in the Buddhist sense is an important teaching used in the explanation of the Doctrine of Dependent Origination in all the various Buddhist traditions.
Here is extract of a Sutta called the “A Safe Bet” that tell us that it is better to belief in rebirth, as whether it is right or wrong, either way one will still benefit from believing in it.
MN 60 - Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet: on the question of Existence & non-existence in para. B3, It is stated as follows, "With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
I think it is almost impossible to explain karma without the concept of rebirth. How else can one explain why bad things happen to good people in this lifetime and vice versa?
I don't think one can ever be fully intellectually convinced of the existence of karma and rebirth, it is very much faith-based. However, "A Safe Bet" makes sense. I guess it is better to be safe than sorry.
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
I think it is almost impossible to explain karma without the concept of rebirth. How else can one explain why bad things happen to good people in this lifetime and vice versa?
I don't think one can ever be fully intellectually convinced of the existence of karma and rebirth, it is very much faith-based. However, "A Safe Bet" makes sense. I guess it is better to be safe than sorry.
My situation has been different from yours. Even though I can't see my past lives like some other people can, for years, I could not shake the certainty that rebirth and karma are real. I even persisted in believing in karma and rebirth while immersed in a Abrahamic religion that calls all other faiths/creeds tricks of the devil.
Intellectually, I can't be convinced that everything is random and happens by chance with no seed of cause. (Neither does it make sense that suffering is the work of the devil, all good things can only come from a benevolent creator and that we are but chess pieces in their eternal tug-of-war.)
-
try reading Shurangama Sutra, it's a wisdom opener:-
"Purna, consider space: its substance is not the various phenomena, yet that does not prevent all phenomena from being included within it. How do we know that? Purna, empty space is bright on a sunny day, and dark when the sky is cloudy. It moves when the wind rises, it is fresh when the sky clears. It is turbid and hazy when the weather is foul, it is obscure when a dust storm breaks out. It casts a bright reflection on a pool of clear water. Do you think these conditioned phenomena come into existence at different places? Are they created from these conditions themselves or is their origin in space. If they arise from these conditions, Purna, then on a sunny day, since the sun is bright, all worlds of the ten directions should take on the form of the sun. Then why, on a sunny day do we see the round sun in the sky? If space is bright, space itself should shine. Then why, when there is a covering of clouds and fog, is no light evident? You should know that the brightness is not the sun, nor space nor other than the space or the sun. Contemplate how phenomena are ultimately false and cannot be verified. They are like flowers conjured up in space that cannot bear fruit. Why, then, investigate how such phenomena appear and disappear? Contemplate how the nature is ultimately truth and is solely the wonderful enlightened brightness. That wonderful enlightened bright mind originally was neither water nor fire. Why, then, ask about incompatibility?
"The truly wonderful enlightened brightness is the same way. You recognize space, and space appears. Recognizing earth, water, fire, and wind, each will appear. If all are recognized, all will appear. How can they all appear? Purna, consider the sun's reflection as it appears in a single body of water. Two people gaze at it, both at the same time. Then one person walks east and the other walks west. Each person, still looking at the water will see a sun go along with him, one to the east, one to the west, while there seems to be no fixed direction for the movement of the sun's reflection. Don't belabor the question and ask, 'If there is one sun, how can it follow both people? Or if the sun is double, why does only one appear in the sky?' This is just revolving in falseness, because such things cannot be proven.
"Purna, you think that form and emptiness overcome and destroy one another in the Treasury of the Tathagata. Thus the Treasury of the Tathagata appears to you as form and emptiness throughout the Dharma Realm. And so, within it the wind moves, emptiness is still, the sun is bright, and the clouds are dark. The reason for this lies in the delusion of beings who have turned their backs on enlightenment and joined with the defiling dust. Thus, the wearisome defilements come into being and mundane phenomena exist.http://www.e-sangha.com/alphone/shurangama.html
/\
-
To Aik TC: something unrelated. Remember about the discussion about one lives/three lives model of D.O.? I just re-visited a sutta and noticed this sutta shows that the Buddha undoubtedly did indeed have three lives model in mind when he talks about the twelve links of d.o. (He talks about the process of consciousness descending into the mother's womb leading to the maturation of the fetus's body, which means the mental/karmic formations supporting the consciousness leading to maturation of the fetus must surely be from a previous lifetime): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html Name-and-form "'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?" "No, lord." "If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?" "No, lord." "If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
To Aik TC: something unrelated.
Remember about the discussion about one lives/three lives model of D.O.? I just re-visited a sutta and noticed this sutta shows that the Buddha undoubtedly did indeed have three lives model in mind when he talks about the twelve links of d.o. (He talks about the process of consciousness descending into the mother’s womb leading to the maturation of the fetus’s body, which means the mental/karmic formations supporting the consciousness leading to maturation of the fetus must surely be from a previous lifetime):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.1…
Name-and-form
”’From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?”
“No, lord.”
“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?”
“No, lord.”
“If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?”
“No, lord.”
“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness.”
Thanks for the Info.
I was reading the statement “If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?”
I believe we have to be careful with the word ‘consciousness’ used here. There are two main type of consciousness mentioned in the Suttas. Consciousness which arises from the six senses aggregate when it come into contact with its objects which is dependent co-arising and the other that “does not partake in the allness of the All”. The All here is a reference to the senses.
In MN38, The monk S�ti the Fisherman's Son was rebuked by the Buddha when he said "Exactly so, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One such that it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
He was rebuked by the Buddha as follows:
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
It is also in this sutta that we read of the term Gandhabba which have to be present for physical rebirth to take place. Other than that, the consciousness that is the carrier of our past kammic seeds are not stated, I believe, anywhere else in the suttas. It is only mention in the Abhidhamma, where the term Bhavanga-Sota the 'subconscious life-stream’ is used to explain how kammic seeds are stored and carried forward to our next life.
-
The consciousness being spoken here obviously is conditioned consciousness, since this is part of the twelve afflictive links of dependent origination. The consciousness, as explained by buddha, also refers to the linking consciousness or gandhabba, which in mahayana traditions is known as the antarabhava and bardo consciousness. All these are already known. But what I find interesting about this sutta is that it puts down the claims that Buddha only had the one life model in mind when he talks about twelve links. This is clearly not the case as he talks about consciousness here as the gandhabba which when descended into the womb serves as the condition for the maturation of the fetal body. This consciousness is then conditioned by karmic/mental formations, which logically of course has to come from a previous life (it can't possibly appear out of nowhere).
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Thanks for the Info.
I was reading the statement “If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?”
I believe we have to be careful with the word ‘consciousness’ used here. There are two main type of consciousness mentioned in the Suttas. Consciousness which arises from the six senses aggregate when it come into contact with its objects which is dependent co-arising and the other that “does not partake in the allness of the All”. The All here is a reference to the senses.
In MN38, The monk S�ti the Fisherman's Son was rebuked by the Buddha when he said "Exactly so, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One such that it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
He was rebuked by the Buddha as follows:
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
It is also in this sutta that we read of the term Gandhabba which have to be present for physical rebirth to take place. Other than that, the consciousness that is the carrier of our past kammic seeds are not stated, I believe, anywhere else in the suttas. It is only mention in the Abhidhamma, where the term Bhavanga-Sota the 'subconscious life-stream’ is used to explain how kammic seeds are stored and carried forward to our next life.
If it is the karma that passes from one "life" to another, then why can't we see that as the eternal "soul"?
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The consciousness being spoken here obviously is conditioned consciousness, since this is part of the twelve afflictive links of dependent origination.
The consciousness, as explained by buddha, also refers to the linking consciousness or gandhabba, which in mahayana traditions is known as the antarabhava and bardo consciousness.
All these are already known.
But what I find interesting about this sutta is that it puts down the claims that Buddha only had the one life model in mind when he talks about twelve links.
This is clearly not the case as he talks about consciousness here as the gandhabba which when descended into the womb serves as the condition for the maturation of the fetal body. This consciousness is then conditioned by karmic/mental formations, which logically of course has to come from a previous life (it can’t possibly appear out of nowhere).
The sutta may have spoken about rebirth, but I believe you would have notice that the description of the dependent co-arising quoted only 9 of the 12 links in the standard format giving Ignorance, Volition and also the Senses a miss. Frankly nowhere can we find in any suttas implicitly describing the paticca samuppada in the three lifetime format. This format was first elaborated by Buddhaghosa and taken to be the authority from his work the Visuddhimagga. The importance is that, the doctrine is about breaking the ‘chain’, and attaining the cessation of suffering.
It would benefit some if you have elaborated on the term 'consciousness’ earlier. No everyone visiting and reading the postings on this site are as well informed or as well read as you are, by the way.
-
Originally posted by allkosong:
The soul is considered as a permanent eternal entity that moves on from one body to another as the old one dies. The Buddhist totally opposes such notion of a permanent entity moving from one body to another and said there is no such. No idea how to equate karmic ‘seeds’ cause by our pass karmic actions to be an eternal soul anyway. They are quite different things altogether.
-
There are two possible ways to explain karma:
With or without a repository. However, in any case, no unchanging soul is being posited.
Yogacara accepts the repository however it is explained as a momentarily arising-and-subsiding stream of consciousness, not an unchanging self or soul:
Glossary (from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html):
*Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas.The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind.
For Madhyamika followers, the repository consciousness is rejected either ultimately or even conventionally... since karmic seeds are mere potentials and not manifested concrete realities.
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche explains:
Specifically, Madhyamika does not accept the Yogachara base because if causes for negative karma are created, then, when secondary circumstances arise, karma will inevitably manifest. That potentiality is not something concrete on the material level that can get lost, change, or lose its capacity to manifest. For example, though a physical body can have a shadow, we cannot see the shadow if no secondary cause exists. When a secondary cause like light or sunshine is present, then the shadow appears immediately. So a repository, the Yogachara concept of the base, is not necessary. In short, in the Madhyamika view, when a karmic seed is produced a consequence always follows, but a consequence that manifests only in the presence of secondary causes.
Chittamatra and Madhyamaka Assertions
All four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism accept that the Chittamatra (sems-tsam, mind-only) system of Indian Buddhist tenets asserts alayavijnana (kun-gzhi rnam-shes, all-encompassing foundation consciousness, storehouse consciousness) as a truly existent (bden-grub) unclear consciousness that underlies all moments of cognition before enlightenment. It serves as the basis for imputation of the habits of unawareness and of karma, continues from lifetime to lifetime, but ceases with the attainment of Buddhahood.
[See Basic Features of the Gelug-Chittamatra System.]
The non-Gelug traditions – Sakya, Kagyu, Nyingma – accept that the Madhyamaka tenet systems that make positive assertions about reality (all Madhyamaka systems other than Prasangika) also assert alayavijnana. These Madhyamaka systems, however, assert only a conventionally existent (tha-snyad-du yod-pa) alayavijnana, not an ultimately existent one (don-dam-du yod-pa). The conventionally existent alayavijnana, however, lacks true existence.
The Gelug tradition asserts that no Madhyamaka system accepts even the conventional existence of an alayavijnana.
-
Thanks a lot for this thread
